• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
It's a good job I have not claimed to be any of those things,
Click to expand...


You’re literally pretending to teach people physics. That implies you think you know more about it than they.

Your entire approach is based on the insinuation that you know better than professionals what constitutes a valid forensic engineering investigation. By assuming an authoritative role, regardless of labels, you insinuate to have the requisite skill and knowledge. But you simply don’t, and you resist and resent being told this, or being told that appropriate skill and knowledge are necessary to arriving at correct answers or judging the answers arrived at by others.

You don’t know what you’re talking about, but you revel in that mediocrity and act indignant when no one else does. You’re simply in the wrong forum to expect accolades for arrogant ignorance.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Water pressure is irrelevant.



By being appropriately qualified in the relevant sciences. Not by plugging various numbers and poorly-informed assumptions into ChatGPT and smugly assuming the drivel that issues forth—which you clearly don't understand—trumps the confident answers of people who actually dounderstand the problem.

You are not a physicist. You don't understand most, if not all, the real-world factors that apply to the sinking of MS Estonia and its subsequent investigations. You are not the teacher. You're not even a good student.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
It's a good job I have not claimed to be any of those things,
Click to expand...

Vixen, the following quotes are attributed to you. Each of them represents a laughable attempt to explain, ie; teach, physics. It is not necessary for you to claim to be a physics teacher. You mistaken opinions are more than ample evidence that you think you have the ability to teach physics to those so much more knowledgeable than yourself. In fact it is blindingly obvious that you do not have the capacity to even understand the concepts you espouse.

Vixen said:
No. When a ship or any item is submerged beneath water the laws of gravity do not remain the same (buoyancy) and nor do doors swing open and shut, due to water pressure. So imagine a surge of seawater enters the car deck. How then would the open car ramp now swing shut 'a few times'?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Are you sure about that?


To determine the force exerted when a ship hits the seabed, we need to consider the concept of pressure. Pressure is defined as force per unit area. We can calculate the force exerted by the ship using the formula:

Force = Pressure × Area

Given that the ship hits the seabed at a depth of 80 meters, we need to calculate the pressure at that depth. The pressure in a fluid increases with depth due to the weight of the fluid above. The pressure at a specific depth can be calculated using the formula:

Pressure = Density × Gravitational acceleration × Depth

The density of seawater is typically around 1,025 kilograms per cubic meter, and the gravitational acceleration is approximately 9.8 meters per second squared.

Let's calculate the force exerted by the ship:

Pressure = Density × Gravitational acceleration × Depth
= 1,025 kg/m³ × 9.8 m/s² × 80 m
≈ 803,600 Pa (Pascals)

Next, we need to determine the area over which the force is distributed. Without additional information about the shape or size of the ship's contact area, it is difficult to provide an exact value. However, we can assume a simple approximation that the area of contact is the same as the ship's bottom surface area.

Let's say the ship has a bottom surface area of 1000 square meters (just for illustration purposes).

Force = Pressure × Area
= 803,600 Pa × 1000 m²
= 803,600,000 N (Newtons)

Therefore, if the ship weighs 15,000 tonnes and hits the seabed at a depth of 80 meters, it exerts an approximate force of 803,600,000 Newtons (or 803.6 meganewtons) on the seabed. Please note that these calculations are based on estimations and assumptions, and the actual force may vary depending on the ship's design and the specific circumstances of the impact.
Click to expand...
 
JayUtah said:
You had previously cited Bollyn for a different question. On this point, you allege the particular spin you put on the question was widely expressed, but could not provide another source for it.

Either your claim as stated was unsourced or your source was Bollyn. Which is it?

ETA: You have a habit of withholding or concealing your sources when you know we have reason to consider them disreputable. You need to convince us that’s not what you did in this case. If your source for the claim that Sweden “disappeared” the Egyptians, instead of being deported—as all others reported—exists and was not Bollyn, tell us what it was. Otherwise the best conclusion according to the evidence is that Bollyn was your source, but you declined to tell us.
Click to expand...

It is a fact that Sweden admitted its mistake.

As I have said before, Bollyn means nothing to me. I don't agree with his politics and in any case I believe it is a made up name anyway.
 
JayUtah said:
You’re literally pretending to teach people physics. That implies you think you know more about it than they.

Your entire approach is based on the insinuation that you know better than professionals what constitutes a valid forensic engineering investigation. By assuming an authoritative role, regardless of labels, you insinuate to have the requisite skill and knowledge. But you simply don’t, and you resist and resent being told this, or being told that appropriate skill and knowledge are necessary to arriving at correct answers or judging the answers arrived at by others.

You don’t know what you’re talking about, but you revel in that mediocrity and act indignant when no one else does. You’re simply in the wrong forum to expect accolades for arrogant ignorance.
Click to expand...

So you keep saying.
 
Steve said:
Vixen, the following quotes are attributed to you. Each of them represents a laughable attempt to explain, ie; teach, physics. It is not necessary for you to claim to be a physics teacher. You mistaken opinions are more than ample evidence that you think you have the ability to teach physics to those so much more knowledgeable than yourself. In fact it is blindingly obvious that you do not have the capacity to even understand the concepts you espouse.
Click to expand...


Indeed this is Vixen’s threadbare motte and bailey. She pontificates and preaches. Then when someone asks by what authority she does that, she flees back to the bailey, and how dare you accuse her of pretending to be something she never explicitly claimed to be. She’s just an interested party asking innocent questions and why would this upset and disturb you so much.

It’s a fundamentally dishonest way to address intelligent people.
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed this is Vixen’s threadbare motte and bailey. She pontificates and preaches. Then when someone asks by what authority she does that, she flees back to the bailey, and how dare you accuse her of pretending to be something she never explicitly claimed to be. She’s just an interested party asking innocent questions and why would this upset and disturb you so much.

It’s a fundamentally dishonest way to address intelligent people.
Click to expand...

Get a grip. It is a current news item.
 
Vixen said:
It is a fact that Sweden admitted its mistake.

As I have said before, Bollyn means nothing to me. I don't agree with his politics and in any case I believe it is a made up name anyway.
Click to expand...


Straw man. Sweden accepted culpability for deporting the men. You claimed instead that Sweden had “disappeared” them. You cited no source for that spin on the incident. Bollyn published an article claiming that spin. Either you have no source for the claim, or Bollyn was your source.

No one cares whether you agree with Bollyn’s politics or whether you believe that’s his real name. The question is simply whether your “disappeared” claim was unsourced or whether Bollyn was your source.
 
JayUtah said:
Straw man. Sweden accepted culpability for deporting the men. You claimed instead that Sweden had “disappeared” them. You cited no source for that spin on the incident. Bollyn published an article claiming that spin. Either you have no source for the claim, or Bollyn was your source.

No one cares whether you agree with Bollyn’s politics or whether you believe that’s his real name. The question is simply whether your “disappeared” claim was unsourced or whether Bollyn was your source.
Click to expand...

If a person is plucked off the street and bundled into an aircraft, then that person has been 'disappeared'. Can't call it kidnap if it is sanctioned by the state. Deportation involves a court order and a deportee's right to legal representation. None of the latter happened for those two Egyptian guys.
 
Vixen said:
If a person is plucked off the street and bundled into an aircraft, then that person has been 'disappeared'. Can't call it kidnap if it is sanctioned by the state. Deportation involves a court order and a deportee's right to legal representation. None of the latter happened for those two Egyptian guys.
Click to expand...


No, that’s not what constitutes a disappearance. We covered this at length n the thread I directed you too. Sweden was never accused of disappearing the Egyptians and never admitted to it. Your private definitions are irrelevant. But the fact that your private definition corresponds to Bollyn’s and to no one else’s is revealing.
 
JayUtah said:
In the news, it’s a marginally current news item. In this thread it’s your minestrone of absurd conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with the real investigation.
Click to expand...

Not my 'conspiracy theories'. These are all facts as reported by reputable newspapers at the time.

It is absurd to work yourself up into a state of anger over a current affairs news item.
 
JayUtah said:
No, that’s not what constitutes a disappearance. We covered this at length n the thread I directed you too. Sweden was never accused of disappearing the Egyptians and never admitted to it. Your private definitions are irrelevant. But the fact that your private definition corresponds to Bollyn’s and to no one else’s is revealing.
Click to expand...

You say tomato I say tomato.
 
JayUtah said:
Again, your private definitions don’t matter. Bollyn said “disappeared.” You said “disappeared.” No one else did. Either Bollyn was your source or you have no source. Which is it?
Click to expand...

The unconstitutional removal of two properly registered asylum seekers remains exactly that whatever term you choose to call it. This is a fact. Thus there is no author copyright over this fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom